Subject: [Sip] Problem with IANA policy in RFC 3969

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:50:24 -0600

RFC 3969 defines the IANA registry for SIP and SIPS URI parameters.

It currently says:

--------

4.2.  Registration Policy for SIP and SIPS URI Parameters

    As per the terminology in RFC 2434 [4], the registration policy for
    SIP and SIPS URI parameters shall be "Specification Required".

    For the purposes of this registry, the parameter for which IANA
    registration is requested MUST be defined by a standards-track RFC.

---------

Which IANA has quite reasonably interpreted as  "Specification  
Required".

It has been pointed out to me that the text in 3969 is self  
contradictory, and that the policy as interpreted by IANA is not  
exactly consistent with what we may have meant in 3969 (although I  
think I argued for a simple "specification required" at the time, I  
think I got out-shouted).

What we may have been trying to say is "Specification Required, but  
if that specification is an RFC, we want that RFC to represent an  
IETF consensus as defined by RFC 2434 (meaning that it has had IESG  
review and is appealable)."

Thoughts?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip